Posts Tagged ‘disabled rights’

May 31 roundup

Prospective cop regarded as “paranoid” and “irrational”

A would-be police officer sued the city of Bridgeport, Conn., contending that the police chief had described her behavior as “irrational, irate, and uncooperative as well as paranoid,” which she said should trigger the provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act protecting persons “regarded as” disabled, in this case psychologically disabled. She lost when a court — applying the law as it stood at the time of her termination in mid-2008, before Congress expanded it — deemed the chief’s alleged comments to be colloquial rather than an attempt at a clinical evaluation. As the court noted, however, since 2008 the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) has greatly liberalized the definition of what counts as being “regarded as” disabled — which means her case might have a better chance if it arose today. [Daniel Schwartz]

Little-used Pennsylvania ADA ramps

Federal design standards have changed, so many little-used ADA sidewalk ramps in Berks County, Pa. and elsewhere will be torn up at great expense and replaced with new little-used ramps. “The borough [of Lyons, Pa.] has only a few sidewalks — with most yards running right to the street — so the ramps generally lead to areas that would seem difficult for wheelchairs to cross.” [Reading Eagle, h/t Tad DeHaven] More: Chris Fountain.

“Has the ADA swallowed the FMLA for employee medical leaves?”

Under the banner of combating discrimination against the disabled, Congress and the EEOC may together have quietly instituted a fairly momentous extension of the regime of federally mandated workplace benefits — in particular, imposing on even very small employers a new obligation to hold the jobs of employees taking some kinds of leave. [Hyman]

“Grace Period for ADA Modifications Proposed in Congress”

Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) has reintroduced the ADA Notification Act, which “would provide businesses accused of an ADA violation with a 90-day grace period to make necessary modifications.” That would, among other effects, cut down on some opportunistic suit-filing that is aimed at the generating of attorneys’ fee entitlements. It is not entirely clear what effect it would have in states (like California itself) where lawyers prefer to sue under state laws that are more pro-plaintiff than the ADA itself. [East County Magazine via CJAC]

New frontiers in disability accommodation: classmate mouth-rinsing

Florida: “To protect the [6-year-old] girl [with a severe peanut allergy], students in her class at Edgewater Elementary School are required to wash their hands before entering the classroom in the morning and after lunch, and rinse out their mouths, [Volusia County school spokeswoman Nancy] Wait said, and a peanut-sniffing dog checked out the school during last week’s spring break.” [Reuters]

“Man Sues All-You-Can-Eat Sushi Joint Because He Didn’t Want To Eat Rice”

The customer says he has diabetes and should be entitled to scrape the rice off and just eat the fish. “The rice is part of the all-you-can-eat sushi,” said the restaurant owner, who says the plaintiff has asked $6,000 to drop his suit. “If you only eat the fish, I would go broke.” [Consumerist; David Lazarus, L.A. Times]

Suit charges slow evacuation of broken Disneyland ride

A quadriplegic man says Disney took 40 minutes to evacuate him from a stalled ride at its California theme park, prompting dangerous high blood pressure, and that had it followed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards it would have gotten his wheelchair out more quickly. The pain and suffering were exacerbated, the plaintiff says, by “the continuous, ‘small world’ music in the background.” [Orange County Register]

January 26 roundup

  • Cato Institute scholars liveblog reaction to State of the Union speech and GOP response, plus video on Facebook with Gene Healy and Julian Sanchez, more video;
  • Private store owners get beaten up for lack of ADA ramps. On the other hand, when the federal government is building courthouses… [Sun-Sentinel; earlier here and here]
  • “Securities suits filed in 2010 again a record” [Business Insurance]
  • Do mass tort “claims facilities” enable participants to bypass the strictures of legal ethics? [Monroe Freedman, Legal Ethics Forum]
  • Latest workplace-retaliation ruling once more undermines “pro-business Supreme Court” narrative [Bader, Examiner, more]
  • Jacob Sullum reviews Daniel Okrent book on Prohibition [Reason]
  • Another “lawyers excited about coming wave of bet-the-company climate change suits” article [AFP]
  • Dickie Scruggs: “It was never about the money for me, this litigation” [four years ago on Overlawyered]